NRCC: Ossoff is Too Risky for #GA6

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has released a new TV ad in the #GA6 race that “targets Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff for his support of the notably dangerous Iran Deal and shows how his liberal policies are just too risky to keep Georgians safe.”

NRCC Communications Director Matt Gorman:

“Not only did Jon Ossoff lie about his national security experience, he and Nancy Pelosi support policies that would make our country less safe. Jon Ossoff is a risk Georgians shouldn’t have to take.”

The special election will take place June 20th. Early voting has already begun.

Nancy Pelosi…blah blah blah
Too Liberal…blah blah blah
I think they need some new material. How about Karen Handel’s positions on healthcare? She supports the house’s AHCA. There’s a real winner. Karen Handel, she supports the Trump agenda. Dont think we will see that slogan.

“Tearing it up (the Iranian nuclear deal)…is not going to happen. In spite of all the flaws of the agreement, nothing bad is going to happen relative to nuclear development in Iran in the next few years. Its just not.”

Who said THAT?

Was it the far left’s Chuck Schumer? How about John Kerry? Elizabeth Warren? Oh heck, maybe Cynthia McKinney?

Would you believe (drums please), Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee? The state that has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since the days of (remember him?) Al Gore? He’s up for re-election next year, so I suspect the NRCC ads against him will be getting underway by the end of the year.

Andrew, from your contacts in the Jewish community, can you give us a ball-park figure of what percentage of Jewish voters in CD 6 rank the Iranian nuclear deal as their number 1 or 2 daily concern?

Based on the conversations I have at men’s group, pick-up basketball, or the temple young adult events, the Iran deal is viewed positively. Now there are huge caveats to my anecdotal evidence… 1) it’s anecdotal evidence and 2) very few of the folks I’m talking with don’t live in the 6th, and 3) most of the folks I’m talking to skew younger than the average Jewish voter in the 6th.

Ads about Syrian refugees and the Iran deal aren’t being aimed at Jews. Your typical Jewish voters are going to be Democrats. Those that lean Republican likely do so for fiscal reasons, as there isn’t a whole lot of overlap between Reform Judaism and the social issues the GOP traditionally campaigns on. In all the different places I’ve lived and traveled (and this includes Israel), the people most obsessed with Israel’s security have been Southern Baptists.

This is an ad aimed at turning out conservative voters by showing footage of brown people and explosions to try and equate all Muslims with terrorism and violence. Jews overwhelmingly support Syrian refugees and oppose Trump’s travel ban (seeing as we have a history of being turned away by the US when attempting to flee homicidal maniacs)… this ad isn’t for Jews, it’s for people who are scared of brown people and lack the requisite brain functioning to see that diplomacy has a role to play in the Middle East.

I’m officially reserving the right to not take anyone serious if they complain about Ossoff going negative. Talking about Karen Handel’s spending decisions while in office is nothing compared to this crap. “If you elect Jon Ossoff PEOPLE WILL DIE!” This is so desperate and sad. The only thing that’s worst than this ad is the fact that it might work.

Andrew, interesting take on the anti-refugee ads—I actually thought it was aimed at Jewish voters because of Ossof’s clear advantage among them, Republicans perhaps thinking they can get some of his voters to them over the Iranian deal. I think hard-line conservatives were not going to vote for him in the first place. As AJC pointed out today online, Johnson Ferry Baptist Church—hardly a hotbed of liberalism—took in a Syrian refugee family. As for 10,000 Syrians, well that is not even half a percent of our population; somehow I don’t think we will get overwhelmed…

Ads at this point are all about driving turnout. Plus, I think Jewish voters are too niche of a group to justify a TV ad buy.

As I’ve said elsewhere, the challenge for Handel and the NRCC is walking the line between Trump supporters and mainline Republicans. The latter makeup more of the district, but the former are more likely to turn out on Election Day. Appealing too hard to one risks alienating the other.

So, what issues can both agree on? As we’ve seen before, the district doesn’t seem overwhelmingly concerned with traditional social wedge issues like abortion or gay marriage. The environment isn’t enough of a needle mover. The demographics and economics of the district don’t align with Trump’s populist message. The GOP does not want to mention healthcare if they can help it. The only real major “issue” out there is National Security. So let’s cut some ads about terrorism and attack the Jewish guy for not being sufficiently supportive of Israel. It’s a message that both Republican camps can agree on.

The way I see it…If I only had republicans to chose from Karen Handel would be my choice as she was the most moderate of the 11 that ran, but being that I dont have to chose among republicans there are 2 issues where she has taken positions that are deal breakers

1 That she was the motivating factor in Komen refusing funding to PP. That ended up being reversed and did enormous harm to Komen’s reputation among women and really cost them in donations which could have saved lives. For all of you that say PP doesnt provide screening, PP runs huge programs educating women how to do self breast exams correctly. This saves more lives than any other type of screening if done correctly

2. She came out and said she would vote for the AHCA, a bill that is supported by 17% of the population (and rightly so). Wrong answer. It showed that her knowledge was lacking or she was pandering (while lives are on the line). Neither of those are acceptable.

I’m not so thrilled with Ossoff’s take on the budget (shows he doesnt quite understand how that works either) but he is by far the better choice.